No Trespassing Signs

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Kamper

The property owner does not have to be aware there is a squatter.

Generally, that is not correct. Under most interpretations of the law of adverse possession, the legal owner of the property must have reasonable notice that his property is being used by another in order for a claim to stand.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Generally, that is not correct. Under most interpretations of the law of adverse possession, the legal owner of the property must have reasonable notice that his property is being used by another in order for a claim to stand.

How come squatters were allow to stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed. This has been on the news lately.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

How come squatters were allow to stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed. This has been on the news lately.

Please provide a link to at least one published story where a court, after an evidentiary hearing, has "allowed" squatters to "stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed."

[dpg]

Yike sorry folks for asking my original question!!! Now this thread has me thinking because I own a small lot in Suissevale that I don't do a thing with. Haven't even walked the lot for maybe 10 years. Maybe I should to be sure nobody has cleaned it out or anything.

[Bear Island South]

Originally Posted by dpg

Yike sorry folks for asking my original question!!! Now this thread has me thinking because I own a small lot in Suissevale that I don't do a thing with. Haven't even walked the lot for maybe 10 years. Maybe I should to be sure nobody has cleaned it out or anything.

I recommend for anyone who owns land large or small, walk your property lines at least once a year. If you don't know where your lines are you should probably think about getting it surveyed.

[BroadHopper]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Please provide a link to at least one published story where a court, after an evidentiary hearing, has "allowed" squatters to "stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed."

or adverse possessions and you should get tons of articles like this one.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...atter-20121202

You will notice that most have court battles with squatters thinking the owner is broke and hopefully drop the case because of lawyer fees.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

or adverse possessions and you should get tons of articles like this one.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/dec...atter-20121202

You will notice that most have court battles with squatters thinking the owner is broke and hopefully drop the case because of lawyer fees.

That's an interesting story, but no person (except a scammer pretending he was an agent for the legal owner), and certainly no court, "allowed" Mr. Glover to occupy Mr. Cote's loft.

If you find a situation where a court, after a contested hearing, adjudicated a quiet title action in favor of the adverse possessor, let me know.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by TMI Guy

Please provide a link to at least one published story where a court, after an evidentiary hearing, has "allowed" squatters to "stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed."

I don't think anyone is saying the courts have allowed this to happen, it's just that the banks have given up trying to sell them (in a lot of cases) and don't want to fight the squatters in a court of law because of the cost and time involved.

[BroadHopper]

There are many empty homes because of the economy. Some were foreclosed and no buyers. There is even a development of new homes that was abandoned on the west coast. Many banks and owners welcome squatters because if the homes are not air conditioned mold and mildew will destroy the value. I was told of this by a broker in the Tampa area.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by Rusty

I don't think anyone is saying the courts have allowed this to happen, it's just that the banks have given up trying to sell them (in a lot of cases) and don't want to fight the squatters in a court of law because of the cost and time involved.

Broadhopper asked, "how come squatters were allowed to stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed."

I'm guessing he doesn't mean that the homeowners returning from business trips or vacations allowed the squatters to stay, so the obvious inference is that a court allowed this. Broadhopper, if I've got that wrong, please correct me. Anyway, if a legal owner does give permission for a squatter to stay, one of the necessary elements for adverse possession is missing.

[BroadHopper]

You think once a homeowner finds someone squatting on his or her property, you should be able to call police to have them remove. In the cases I read, this does not happen and the squatters remain on the property until the court makes a decision. At times it takes months. It is not fair for the homeowner to incur legal expenses and rent another property until the squatters are evicted. Too many people are taking advantage of this.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

You think once a homeowner finds someone squatting on his or her property, you should be able to call police to have them remove. In the cases I read, this does not happen and the squatters remain on the property until the court makes a decision. At times it takes months. It is not fair for the homeowner to incur legal expenses and rent another property until the squatters are evicted. Too many people are taking advantage of this.

That's technically what happened to Mr. Cote in the L.A. Times article that you linked to, but he wasn't living in the property that was taken over by the squatting Mr. Glovger; for all intenets and purposes Mr. Cote had given up the property to the lender in anticipation of a foreclosure action, which for whatever reason was not initiated. In a situation like this, it's understandable why the police would be reluctant to take action and instead defer to the legal process.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find any examples where a homeowner returns home after a brief absence (for instance, after a vacation or business trip), finds a squatter in residence, and the police fail to take immediate action (if necessary).

[BroadHopper]

House for sale and the police did not kick squatters out.

http://seattletimes.com/html/dannywe...8_danny13.html

In this case a home owner cannot remove a squatter by force. The owner left the house because of a defective boiler. She was force to live with the squatter?????

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...170128148.html

I'm just saying cases are not hard to find. There was a 20/20 article about Mexican illegals squatting in the Southwest and because of legal complications they are not evicted very easily. If need be I can dig them up.

This is all the more reason why I strongly urge to hire a caretaker to check on your seasonal property often. It is common on the Lake to find someone living in a cabin during the winter months and move out before the home owner arrives in the spring.

[P-3 Guy]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

House for sale and the police did not kick squatters out.

http://seattletimes.com/html/dannywe...8_danny13.html

In this case a home owner cannot remove a squatter by force. The owner left the house because of a defective boiler. She was force to live with the squatter?????

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...170128148.html

I'm just saying cases are not hard to find. There was a 20/20 article about Mexican illegals squatting in the Southwest and because of legal complications they are not evicted very easily. If need be I can dig them up.

Right. In both of these cases, the residence had been vacant for an extended period of time.

"The 8,000-square-foot mansion was dark and in foreclosure for years."

"Heidi Peterson could not believe what was in her Detroit home when she returned after being away for a year."

In the second case, the squatter had been a former tenant who still had personal belongings at the property.

This is not the same as squatters being "allowed" to "stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business (or) vacation."

The point that I'm trying to make is that people hear these "stories" about squatting (which really isn't adverse possession), many of which are lacking important details, and they get spooled up. Yes, there's a legal process to evict squatters. Yes, it often takes time. But nobody should be concerned about going on a business trip or vacation for a week and then coming home to find squatters in their house, with the local police shrugging their shoulders and saying, "sorry, you need to file a lawsuit to get your house back."

This is all the more reason why I strongly urge to hire a caretaker to check on your seasonal property often. It is common on the Lake to find someone living in a cabin during the winter months and move out before the home owner arrives in the spring.

What do you mean by "common"? Once or twice a season? More often than that? Really?

[BroadHopper]

Actually it had happen at my family cottage and to a neighbor. There was even a case in Tuftonboro last winter, the squatters not only stayed at the summer residence for months, they stole electronics and furniture when they left! The police told the owner that there should be a 'Neighborhood Watch'. How can you have a neighborhood watch when the neighbors are gone for the winter????????

Ever since, he set up a security alarm and he is paying me to keep an eye out on the property. The police does not want the responsibilty to check on seasonal homes. the owner says, 'What the heck do you do in the winter?'.

You don't see these things in police blogs, but if you ask an officer, he will say it is common.

[Bear Island South]

Here's a different approach to property owners and property disputes.
Check out the video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2341194.html

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by Bear Island South

Here's a different approach to property owners and property disputes.
Check out the video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2341194.html

Very Childish.

[DEJ]

Rusty, the message/word you were trying to post is childish. We know what you meant though.

[Rusty]

Originally Posted by BroadHopper

How come squatters were allow to stay in homes they took over while the homeowners were away for business, vacation or when homes were foreclosed. This has been on the news lately.

There is a movement that is taking place where squatters are taking over foreclosed homes. It's hard to say what will eventually happen with this movement because the banks can't sell them and they don't want to spend any money fighting the squatters.

It is on the news today:

>